Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27713429›Full record

SynthesisNature communications2016

Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Taylor H Ricketts, Keri B Watson, Insu Koh, Alicia M Ellis, Charles C Nicholson, Stephen Posner, Leif L Richardson, Laura J Sonter

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect of primate protection on threatened and endemic vertebrates, plants, ecosystem services, and future climate refugia.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Effects of human demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Taylor H RickettsGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Keri B WatsonGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Insu KohGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Alicia M EllisGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Charles C NicholsonGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Stephen PosnerGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Leif L RichardsonGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.
Laura J SonterGund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05405, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) are an increasingly popular policy framework for connecting biodiversity with human well-being. These efforts typically assume that biodiversity and ES covary, but the relationship between them remains remarkably unclear. Here we analyse >500 recent papers and show that reported relationships differ among ES, methods of measuring biodiversity and ES, and three different approaches to linking them (spatial correlations, management comparisons and functional experiments). For spatial correlations, biodiversity relates more strongly to measures of ES supply than to resulting human benefits. For management comparisons, biodiversity of 'service providers' predicts ES more often than biodiversity of functionally unrelated taxa, but the opposite is true for spatial correlations. Functional experiments occur at smaller spatial scales than management and spatial studies, which show contrasting responses to scale. Our results illuminate the varying dynamics relating biodiversity to ES, and show the importance of matching management efforts to the most relevant scientific evidence.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcosystemConservation of Natural ResourcesCrop ProductionHumansPest ControlWater Purification

Identifiers

PMID27713429
PMCPMC5059779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.